Rezoning, Councils, Developers, Neighbours Hellbent on Cashing in...

Mark351 · 02-12-2009, 11:57 PM

So our small acreage is in a group of over 2 dozen other similar sized properties which are currently zoned rural living but have been earmarked in a council structure plan as 'future residential'. We have neighours have been dead keen on subdividing, and while they've been knocked back on previous attempts to subdivide into smaller acre blocks, have latched onto this 'future residental' note in the structure plan and want to accelerate it by submitting a consolidated submission by all the property owners (including some owned by developers who've bought in recently) by a planning group they've recently engaged...

...all property owners it seems except us!

We like our property and don't want it carved up... yet. We recognise that it will one day, but we certainly don't want to contribute and help pay for planners, and the various 'studies' on things such as drainage, flora and fauna that will be needed prior to rezoning being approved as an urency that would otherwise come as a natural progression as council sees fit.

Has anyone been in a similar situation and can other some advice? Or any property devs that could shed some light on how best to manage it?

rodderz · 03-12-2009, 12:31 AM

My parents live on a street where this has been happening the last few years. They have just under 2 acres, but the minimum zoning was for 1 acre lots, so they couldnt split into 2. Everyone else in the immediate area has on average about 4-10 acres so they were keen to subdivide, but they have had so much trouble with council. The council will tell them to do one thing, then change their mind a few months later and tell them they can't do it.

The family down the road have already subdivided, and moved across the road to build a new house, they split their property into 6 and sold them all (a few of them had houses destroyed in Kinglake/St Andrews). The council made the owner plant 5000 plants along a natural drainage line for a habitat link, only to get told to take them all out as it was a fire hazard.

As for my parents, they are probably in the same situation as yourself, they don't want to move yet but want to get good money for the land down the track. So far the other owners or council haven't given them grief (they know all of them anyway) or putting in for any planning works. I think they are just sitting on it and down the track will either sell as a whole or try to divide into 2 if possible.

trippytaka · 03-12-2009, 05:52 PM

Man, the suburb where I grew up has been raped by developers... My mum's house has lost 15% of its value :( unfortunately in NSW the government is so corrupted by developers there isn't much you can do. MOVE OUT NOW! That's my advice.

Keepleft · 03-12-2009, 07:44 PM

Its how once proud landowners are forced off their land, by re-zoning and the higher yearly rates et al that then become applicable.

Progress they say.

Mate has a place at Gunnedah on the edge of town, one day these folk entered and walked up to the house and started surveying (like whaaaa??). Chap said, 'well under future subdivision plans, your boundary would end just here' - pointing to his driveway. Similar size block to Op's. "Ahh but I'm not selling, out".

To cut through this, I suspect 'developers' see large blocks, advocate with varying levels of success,- both with and without mates-in-Council, to start 'planning' and re-zoning application,- with a long term view of getting the land they want.

Will watch this thread with interest.

**cs123** · 03-12-2009, 07:54 PM

Once this starts happening it gets difficult to go against the flow.

Say they decide to resist then they could be looking at having a 2 acre block sitting amongst a bunch of houses. This kind of ruins the concept of acreage living.

I'd be looking at it from maximising the position they are in, and if they can get a very good price by grouping together then they should consider it and buy acreage elsewhere.

Road_Warrior · 03-12-2009, 11:51 PM

Sorry I missed this thread, what state are you in Mark? I may be able to give you some advice on your little conundrum (9 years in local government and the past 4 as a Local Government Investigator for the State Government). PM me if you prefer.

Mark351 · 05-12-2009, 08:46 PM

I'm in Vic Warrior. I'd be glad for any advice.

Appreciate the tips so far guys. We think that for any development to go ahead, a complete 'development overlay', in council speak, needs to be applied to all 26 blocks in one go. By being involved in planning, I think some owners hope to develop around their houses, including some neighbours who recently did a massive renovation on their house including the additional of an extra story. We're dead bang on in the middle of our block though, and for us it's the whole five acres or none at all. Once rezoning does occur we'll sell up, we won't bother having development around us. For us, rezoning will occur naturally and it's the accelerating of it that is the concern.

Road_Warrior · 05-12-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark351

I'm in Vic Warrior. I'd be glad for any advice.

Appreciate the tips so far guys. We think that for any development to go ahead, a complete 'development overlay', in council speak, needs to be applied to all 26 blocks in one go. By being involved in planning, I think some owners hope to develop around their houses, including some neighbours who recently did a massive renovation on their house including the additional of an extra story. We're dead bang on in the middle of our block though, and for us it's the whole five acres or none at all. Once rezoning does occur we'll sell up, we won't bother having development around us. For us, rezoning will occur naturally and it's the accelerating of it that is the concern.

I'm not all that familiar with the Victorian planning system, but my impression is that it is not that dissimilar from other states.

Structure planning is a way of reserving land for a specific purpose with a particular concept or design in mind. It's usually used for future urban but can be used (and often is) for industrial subdivisions as well. A structure plan may be prepared by one landowner, or a group of landowners, that encompasses only their land or it can include land that is not theirs in the overall plan. They do not require your permission to produce a structure plan that shows (indicatively) your land.

The structure plan does, however, have to be adopted by the Council (itself) and this can only occur after a public consultation period. In addition, the approval or endorsement of a structure plan does not imply a requirement to develop or subdivide. If its not what you want, then that is all that matters. You may find that urban will spring up all around you, but if you want to hold out, then that is your right and that cannot be taken from you. Nor can access to utilities and infrastructure. I will also point out that the structure planning process and the subdivision process are two separate processes.

The 'future urban' zoning is not one that will (legally) allow the urbanisation of your area right now. This may only occur if the area is actually zoned urban or development zone or similar. This is more than likely the reason why Council has imposed the 'future urban' zoning, because it acknowledges that one day it can forsee the area being urban, but a decent structure plan needs to be prepared first. There may also be some environmental issues that need sorting out (any industrial buffer zones in the area??) as well, hence the future urban deal. It's kind of like "urban, but on hold".

The big downside for you will be that in the meantime, with the future urban zoning, and if the structure plan gets passed, the Council will be able to use that as grounds to refuse any applications you might want to submit that may conflict with the future urban use. Like a big new rural shed or horse stables for example.

Oh, and a word of warning - be wary of anyone coming to talk to you about developer contributions. That includes the Council.

Mark351 · 05-12-2009, 10:38 PM

Great advice, thanks for that. We've been earmarked future residential as Lara itself is part of Victoria's overall growth plan, and our small area in Lara is already adjacent to some residential, and adjacent to another section also earmarked future residential that also has a group of landowners submitting requests for rezoning to occur now and not later.

The current issue around our area that needs investigations into drainage (part of the area is subject to flooding) plus the usual impact studies, etc. We do have industrial buffer zones but in other parts of Lara.

Keepleft · 06-12-2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Oh, and a word of warning - be wary of anyone coming to talk to you about developer contributions. That includes the Council.

Excellent read, the quoted bit sounds like NSW, regardless, would you be able to expand on that bit to clarify in greater detail how that works? No specific example needed:-)

Are we talking contributions to political parties, council membership?

Presumably done to win favour re an outcome.

Road_Warrior · 06-12-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Excellent read, the quoted bit sounds like NSW, regardless, would you be able to expand on that bit to clarify in greater detail how that works? No specific example needed:-)

Are we talking contributions to political parties, council membership?

Presumably done to win favour re an outcome.

Nah developer contributions are usually a calculated fee or subsidy (usually in the thousands) that a developer must pay to the local government for infrastructure. Roads, footpaths, roadside hardware, drainage etc. Its common practice these days nation wide. Also, not sure what the rules are over there but over here any broadacre subdivider must give either 10% of their land as public open space or submit a cash in lieu fee to cover it.

The reason I said to be wary is that developers may try to pull the wool over your eyes to get you to pay up more than you should. And Councils can get the calculations wrong or may take sides with a big-ticket developer to get you to cave in or whatever if you are seen to be difficult.

In any event, the OP is not interested in being a party to the development at the moment; the land cannot be developed without an approved structure plan; and they cannot make him foot a developer contribution bill if he isn't participating. Unless the local government gives clear and logical reasoning why you should, and provides you with the calculation matrix so that you can get your own legal advice on the matter (if and when it comes).

Keepleft · 06-12-2009, 06:21 PM

Digested and understood, very many thanks!

Gaz · 07-12-2009, 12:13 AM

ATM we are in one of the only area's in Perth that I understand that isn't allow to subdivide (Inner city) and have just received a letter that states they are looking to remove the 'restricted convent' or something a rather to allow sub dividing for duplex's etc.. needless to say parents, neighbours etc are all very ****ed off. We know one guy int he area who has bought several houses in the area and is waiting for this so he can make a nice little profit.

No thanks, we are quite happy to keep our area free of hundreds of duplexes etc.

Walt Kowalski · 07-12-2009, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark351

We like our property and don't want it carved up... yet. .....
Has anyone been in a similar situation and can other some advice? Or any property devs that could shed some light on how best to manage it?

I can understand how you feel.

Too many developments are simply maximised for the highest profit with a "one size fits all" solution to residential development, without taking into account special local issues.

I do not know what your property is worth but if the value went up by, say, 6 times virtually overnight (e.g. $500,000 turns into $3,000,000.00) would you sell it to a developer so he can do his thing with it?

That's the question you need to resolve.

They are the numbers I know from exprerience of a very good mate who faced the same thing.

He took the money, gave up work and enjoyed life with his family.

All his neighbours sold as well but he never saw much of any of them again as they all moved to different areas.

jcxr · 07-12-2009, 12:46 PM

My small property abutts the Plenty Gorge Park in Victoria, and has been earmarked as PPOS [proposed public open space ] or parklands in human speak. We have the reverse of your situation. Parks Victoria already own about 95% of the required land but havent spoken to the remaining land owners in 20 years. I think they are only going to put their hand up when remaining properties come on the market so as not to have the prices driven up by possible greed by present land owners. We had previously been told by MMBW , the original government body interested in this scheme, that there would be no compulsory aquisition but who knows now?

Mark351 · 07-12-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt Kowalski

I do not know what your property is worth but if the value went up by, say, 6 times virtually overnight (e.g. $500,000 turns into $3,000,000.00) would you sell it to a developer so he can do his thing with it?

We probably would, but it's that process that I'm still unsure about. If we don't sign a memorandum of agreement, and don't contribute to the process have the planning company submitting the consolidated planning amendment to council, what could we miss out on? As it stands, by doing those thing, I'm legally bound to an agreement and have to contribute financially to something I don't urgently support.

It would seem to be straight forward yet I'm still unclear.